Views
Conflict of Law Rules in the Early 20th Century Ethiopia: A Brief Legal History
Guest post by Bebizuh Mulugeta Menkir, former Lecturer of Laws in University of Gondar, currently working as a Lawyer and Senior National Consultant for a legal reform project. E-mail: babimulugeta@gmail.com
The Ethiopian legal system is characterized by the absence of codified rules on conflict of laws. Though it cannot be considered as the exact period in which conflict of laws have emerged in Ethiopia, some elements of such rules can be found even in the early 1900s, which is long before the modern codes were developed in 1950s and 1960s.
A book written by Mersehazen Woledekirkos titled “Ye Hayagenawe Keflezemen Mebacha:Ye Zemen Tarik Tezetaye Kayehute ena Kesemahute 1896–1922”[1] is a record of historical events that happened in 20th century Ethiopia. One of the records is the “Trade Agreement (1908)” that was signed between Ethiopia and France. This agreement, among others, regulates the adjudication of disputes between Ethiopian and French nationals/dependents. This short piece aims to briefly discuss the salient conflict of laws rules that are incorporated in this trade agreement. Read more
US Supreme Court: Hearing in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico). Selling guns comparable to selling beer to teenagers?
Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University
The hearing in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) No. 23-1141 took place in March 2025 before the US Supreme Court. We have previously reported on this case here and here. The transcript and the audio files can be found here.
As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. Mexico alleges inter alia that defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Among the claims for relief are: Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act] and punitive damages.
Brexit and PIL – Belgian Supreme Court confirms the application of the 2005 Hague Convention to jurisdiction clauses designating UK courts concluded after 1 October 2015
By Guillaume Croisant (Linklaters LLP)
The United Kingdom deposited an instrument of accession to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Convention”) on 28 September 2020. This instrument of accession became effective after the Brexit’s transition period, on 1 January 2021, and gained binding force within the UK legal order following the adoption of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020.
As many readers will be aware, a controversy exists regarding the temporal scope of the Convention. It applies to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded after its entry into force for the State of the chosen court and to disputes initiated after its entry into force for the State of the seized court. EU Member States have been bound by the Hague Convention since its approval by the European Union on 1 October 2015, but what about the UK after its withdrawal from the EU?
According to a first viewpoint, reflected in the UK’s instrument of accession, ” In accordance with Article 30 of the 2005 Hague Convention, the United Kingdom became bound by the Convention on 1 October 2015 by virtue of its membership of the European Union, which approved the Convention on that date.”
Conversely, under a second viewpoint (apparently shared by the European Commission in its ‘Notice to stakeholders – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of civil justice and private international law’ dated 27 August 2020, p. 9), the Convention could only apply after the United Kingdom’s ‘independent’ ratification, which occurred on 1 January 2021. If this second perspective were accepted, jurisdiction agreements concluded before this date would not benefit from the mutual recognition system established by the Convention.
In a judgment (in French) dated 27 March 2025 (C.24.0012.F), the Belgian Supreme Court (Court de Cassation/Hof van Cassatie) ruled in favour of the first viewpoint, holding that “The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 has been applicable to the United Kingdom as a bound State, owing to the European Union’s approval of the Convention, from 1 October 2015 until 31 December 2020, and as a contracting party from 1 January 2021. The argument, in this regard, that the United Kingdom ceased to be bound by the Convention following its withdrawal from the European Union on 1 February 2020, is without legal basis.”
News
Marola on International Jurisdiction over Infringements of Personality Rights in EU Private International Law: Book Review
Giacomo Marola’s International Jurisdiction over Infringements of Personality Rights in EU Private International Law (2025 Wolters Kluwer) addresses a deceptively simple but persistently debated question: where should a claimant be entitled to sue when reputation, privacy, or personal data are infringed across borders? As the book makes clear from the outset, this question lies at the intersection of private international law, fundamental rights, and the realities of online communication. Personality rights disputes are structurally conflictual, typically opposing the protection of moral integrity to freedom of expression, while the Internet continues to strain jurisdictional rules built around territorial connecting factors. Against this backdrop, the book offers a timely and systematic assessment of the EU framework.
Chapter I constitutes the analytical core of the work. It provides a detailed examination of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Court of Justice’s case law on the ‘place of the harmful event’ in personality rights disputes. From Shevill to eDate Advertising, Bolagsupplysningen, Mittelbayerischer and Gtflix, Marola carefully examines the construction of locus actus and locus damni, focusing in particular on the publisher’s place of establishment, the persistence of the ‘mosaic’ approach, and jurisdiction based on the victim’s centre of interests. The chapter goes beyond doctrinal reconstruction by assessing these solutions against the objectives of proximity, predictability, and procedural balance, and by advancing a well-argued proposal de lege ferenda.
Chapter II places the EU approach in comparative perspective through an analysis of US jurisdictional doctrine in defamation and online tort cases. By retracing the path from Keeton and Calder to the rise and decline of the Zippo test and the renewed prominence of the ‘effects’ doctrine, the chapter sheds light on both convergences and structural differences. In doing so, it provides a useful corrective to overly enthusiastic transatlantic borrowings sometimes found in the European literature.
The final chapter turns to the General Data Protection Regulation and its interaction with the Brussels I-bis Regulation. Chapter III examines both public and private enforcement mechanisms, with particular attention to Article 79 GDPR and its implications for jurisdictional choice in data protection litigation. By integrating GDPR disputes into the broader analysis of personality rights, the book captures an increasingly central area of cross-border litigation.
Overall, the monograph combines doctrinal precision, critical insight, and pragmatic proposals, making it a valuable contribution for scholars and practitioners engaged with jurisdictional questions at the crossroads of EU private international law and fundamental rights.
AAPrIL’s Feb 2026 Seminar: Pitel on ‘Reconsidering the “Proper Party” Basis for Jurisdiction’
On Thursday 12 February 2026, the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL) is hosting its first seminar of 2026, as Professor Stephen Pitel presents free online and in-person (Qld, Australia) on the topic, ‘Reconsidering the “Proper Party” Basis for Jurisdiction’.
Abstract:
In several jurisdictions the fact that a defendant is a ‘proper party’ to a legal proceeding constitutes a sufficient basis for taking jurisdiction over that defendant. Advocates of the proper party basis rely on considerations of fairness and efficiency to support it. Do these considerations support the proper party basis, especially if it is given a wide scope? Recently Canadian courts have been reconsidering their approach to the proper party basis, as seen (somewhat opaquely) in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27. This presentation will explore that reconsideration and offer thoughts for changes in other jurisdictions including Australia and New Zealand.
Chair:
Mary Keyes is Professor of Law at Griffith University, and President of AAPrIL. She is a leading scholar on questions of international jurisdiction and international family law. Mary is co-author of Private International Law in Australia, and is a member of the Working Group on Jurisdiction at the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
Presenter:
Stephen Pitel Stephen G.A. Pitel is a Professor in the Faculty of Law at Western University. His research and teaching are focused on private international law, tort law, civil procedure and legal ethics. Stephen is the author of Conflict of Laws (3rd ed. 2025) and co-author of Private International Law in Common Law Canada: Cases, Text and Materials (5th ed. 2023) and Statutory Jurisdiction: An Analysis of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (2012). His tort law scholarship includes co-authoring Fridman’s The Law of Torts in Canada (4th ed. 2020) and Cases and Materials on the Law of Torts (11th ed. 2023). In the field of legal ethics, Stephen is a contributor to Lawyers’ Ethics and Professional Regulation (4th ed. 2021). He is a former President of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics.
Details:
Date and time: Thursday 12 February 2026, 5:00pm to 6:00pm (AEST)*
Date and time Thursday 12 February 2026, 5:00pm to 6:00pm (AEST)
in person: Griffith University, Southbank, Brisbane: Room 4.03 Building S07. The map is available here.
RSVP (essential): Please register via this link by COB Wednesday 11 February 2026, and advise whether you are attending in person or online. Please access the Teams link here. There is no cost.
* NZ. 8:00pm-9:pm; ACT, NSW, Tas and Vic. 6:00pm-7:00pm; SA, 5:30pm-6:30pm; Qld, PNG. 5:00pm-6:00pm; NT, 4:30pm-5:30pm; WA, 3:00pm-4:00pm
Open Online Conference: “Cross-Border Enforcement of Child Support: Pros and Cons of the Different National Systems” on January 28th, 2026 3-5:30pm CET
The Child Support Forum in cooperation with the International Union of Judicial Officers is pleased to invite every interested stakeholders of the cross border child support recovery to an open conference on January 28th, 2026 from 3 to 5:30 pm (CET).
According to Art. 41 of Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 and Art. 32 of the 2007 Child Support Convention, the enforcement procedure shall be governed by the law of the state of enforcement. But in practice, the prospects of successfully initiating cross-border enforcement proceedings are not always easy to assess. In order to enforce successfully, it is necessary to know the specifics of the legal system of the state of enforcement (the Requested state).
Key questions in this context are:
- What does the process of enforcement of child support looks like in different states?
- Are maintenance claims given a degree of priority?
- How do Central Authorities facilitate the ongoing enforcement of maintenance decisions?
- What are the conditions for children to be exempted from costs?
The meeting aims to review the international legal framework and provide an overview of the various national enforcement systems. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems from a legal policy perspective shall be discussed.
The participation is free of charge but registration is required.
To register, click here.